Matt's review
In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto
by Michael Pollan
Yeah, I can see a little 'tude coming from Pollan. I didn't pick up on it in Omnivore's Dilemma (except for maybe in his dismissal of Singer's animal rights concerns), but I think it appears in some of his NYT's articles, which probably doesn't make for the best reaction from any already skeptical audience.
I'm glad I'm not the only one.... Like I said, I really am interested in his rhetoric, because I try, in my broken and useless way, to understand what I want my students to get out of questions of tone and voice-- what we really mean by this stuff-- and it's good to see someone who clearly has a voice, which I think now I'll try to conceive of as a posture (?) toward their material and/ or audience.... And Pollan is that guy, the one who makes fun of you a little bit for being a hick as a way to convince you that you should do what he wants.
Which is fine-- I don't think it reflects the real Pollan any more than my stories are really about me-- but as a textual feature I think it's interesting, strange, notable...
Matt's review
In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto by Michael Pollan
Matt's review
rating:
I liked this, and read it as much for the way he constructs an argument as for what he actually says.... I mean, I think I know, more or less, what I need to do to eat better, aside from a couple catch phrases (leafs not seeds, etc), but it was still pretty good to see it all articulated and laid out as it is.
That said, I am a little surprised Pollan is as big a name as he is-- I found his tone a little insulting, honestly, and in places, I think his logic was a little spotty in places, or else he was building some parts of his argument from shorthand developed someplace else. It's a good read, and I think he's clearly a sophisticated writer. But he can also be something of an asshole. But maybe it's just me, or maybe his other books, esp _Omnivore's Dilema_ are better, or better places to start with him.
That said, I am a little surprised Pollan is as big a name as he is-- I found his tone a little insulting, honestly, and in places, I think his logic was a little spotty in places, or else he was building some parts of his argument from shorthand developed someplace else. It's a good read, and I think he's clearly a sophisticated writer. But he can also be something of an asshole. But maybe it's just me, or maybe his other books, esp _Omnivore's Dilema_ are better, or better places to start with him.
Yeah, I can see a little 'tude coming from Pollan. I didn't pick up on it in Omnivore's Dilemma (except for maybe in his dismissal of Singer's animal rights concerns), but I think it appears in some of his NYT's articles, which probably doesn't make for the best reaction from any already skeptical audience.
I'm glad I'm not the only one.... Like I said, I really am interested in his rhetoric, because I try, in my broken and useless way, to understand what I want my students to get out of questions of tone and voice-- what we really mean by this stuff-- and it's good to see someone who clearly has a voice, which I think now I'll try to conceive of as a posture (?) toward their material and/ or audience.... And Pollan is that guy, the one who makes fun of you a little bit for being a hick as a way to convince you that you should do what he wants.Which is fine-- I don't think it reflects the real Pollan any more than my stories are really about me-- but as a textual feature I think it's interesting, strange, notable...